Commonwealth v. Fantauzzi

• Decision Date: 27 April 2022
• Docket Number: 502 EDA 2021, No. 503 EDA 2021
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant v. Reinaldo FANTAUZZI Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Reinaldo Fantauzzi, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

275 A.3d 986

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant

v.Reinaldo FANTAUZZI

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

v.Reinaldo Fantauzzi, Appellant

No. 502 EDA 2021

No. 503 EDA 2021

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted January 10, 2022

Filed April 27, 2022

Reargument Denied June 27, 2022

Katharine R. Kurnas, Assistant District Attorney, Easton, for Commonwealth, appellant.

Rebecca J. Kulik, Assistant District Attorney, Easton, for Commonwealth, appellant.

Robert Eyer, Easton, for appellee.

BEFORE: OLSON, J., KING, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

OPINION BY OLSON, J.:

These cases are before us on consolidated cross-appeals.¹ At 502 EDA 2021, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on November 9, 2020.² In its appeal, the Commonwealth argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to resentence Reinaldo Fantauzzi (Fantauzzi) on November 9, 2020, because there was no subject matter jurisdiction for the PCRA³ court to entertain a petition for collateral relief filed by Fantauzzi in July 2014. See Commonwealth's Brief (502 EDA 2021) at 10-19. Because the PCRA court lacked jurisdiction over the July 2014 petition, the Commonwealth reasons that its order granting relief in the form of resentencing, and all subsequent judicial orders addressing Fantauzzi's then-newly imposed sentence, are legal nullities and void ab initio .⁴ Id. At 503 EDA 2021, Fantauzzi raises a discretionary sentencing challenge and further claims that due process warranted the dismissal of an attempted homicide charge because deficiencies in the criminal information failed to place Fantauzzi on notice that the Commonwealth intended to prosecute him for attempted homicide with serious bodily injury. See Fantauzzi's Brief (503 EDA 2021) at 14-24.

After careful review and consideration, we conclude that the Commonwealth's jurisdictional argument is dispositive of all issues raised within the context of this appeal. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of sentence entered on November 9, 2020, and remand this matter for re-imposition of the original sentence imposed by the trial court on September 14, 2006, and affirmed by this Court on August 15, 2007.

The record demonstrates that, on July 12, 2006, a jury convicted Fantauzzi of criminal attempt to commit homicide (2 counts), aggravated assault (4 counts), recklessly endangering another person (4 counts), persons not to possess firearms (1 count), and firearms not to be carried without a license (1 count).⁵ The charges arose from the following event:

[Fantauzzi's convictions arose from an incident in which he shot] at four people in a drive-by incident. One person was sitting in a car; three were on a porch of a nearby house. One of the individuals on the porch, who was already wheelchair bound, was struck [by a bullet] in the leg, thereby constituting serious bodily injury.

Commonwealth v. Fantauzzi , 2016 WL 1567073, at *1 (Pa. Super. Filed April 18, 2016) (unpublished memorandum).

The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 28 to 56 years’ incarceration on September 14, 2006. This Court affirmed Fantauzzi's judgment of sentence on August 15, 2007, and our Supreme Court subsequently denied Fantauzzi's petition for allowance of appeal. Commonwealth v. Fantauzzi , 935 A.2d 10 (Pa. Super. Filed August 15, 2007) (unpublished memorandum), appeal denied , 596 Pa. 702, 940 A.2d 362 (2007).

On February 13, 2008, Fantauzzi filed pro se a petition pursuant to the PCRA. The PCRA court denied Fantauzzi's petition on December 1, 2008. This Court affirmed the order denying Fantauzzi's PCRA petition on January 13, 2010. Commonwealth v. Fantauzzi , 991 A.2d 356 (Pa. Super. Filed January 13, 2010) (unpublished memorandum).⁶

On July 3, 2014, Fantauzzi filed pro se a petition for writ of habeas corpus .⁷ As our resolution of the issues raised in these appeals turns on the legal implications of Fantauzzi's July 3, 2014 filing, we recount the procedural developments surrounding that submission in some detail.

Upon its filing, the PCRA court treated Fantauzzi's petition for writ of habeas corpus as a PCRA petition.⁸ See PCRA Court Order, 8/7/14 (stating, "[t]his petition is construed as a motion for post-conviction collateral relief" (extraneous capitalization omitted)). The PCRA court subsequently appointed PCRA counsel to represent Fantauzzi.⁹ On November 5, 2014, the PCRA court ordered the following:

[Fantauzzi] shall have 30 days to file a petition nunc pro tunc for reconsideration of sentence and a brief in support thereof. The Commonwealth shall have 30 days thereafter to file a responsive brief. Upon receipt of the Commonwealth's brief, the parties shall list this matter for a miscellaneous hearing list for argument.

PCRA Court Order, 11/5/14 (paragraph format omitted). On November 12, 2014, Fantauzzi filed a motion to correct illegal sentence and nunc pro tunc motion to modify sentence ("motion to correct illegal sentence") asserting, inter alia , that Fantauzzi's sentence was illegal because the trial court imposed mandatory minimum sentences pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9712, which was subsequently declared unconstitutional.¹⁰ That same day, Fantauzzi's counsel and the Commonwealth jointly filed a "stipulation of the parties" that read, in part, as follows: "[Fantauzzi's] counsel would like to list this [motion to correct illegal sentence] as a motion to modify sentence rather than a PCRA hearing." See Stipulation of Parties, 11/12/14, at ¶2 (extraneous capitalization omitted). On January 30, 2015, the PCRA court conducted a status conference on Fantauzzi's motion to correct illegal sentence. At the conclusion of the status conference, the PCRA court, upon being presented with a petition for writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum by the Commonwealth, entered a decree that Fantauzzi be present for a hearing on February 20, 2015.¹¹ See PCRA Decree, 1/30/15.

At the February 20, 2015 hearing, the PCRA court stated,

[Fantauzzi] has pursued petitions for post[-]conviction [collateral] relief which have been exhausted. He filed the instant motion to correct illegal sentence and nunc pro tunc motion to modify sentence on [ ] November 12, 2014. We are here for the hearing on that matter.

N.T., 2/20/15, at 3. The PCRA court stated that it understood that "there [was] an agreement of counsel in light of the [motion to correct illegal sentence] and proceed with a new sentence hearing that does not consider the [mandatory minimum sentence] provisions of 42 [Pa.C.S.A. § ]9712." N.T., 2/20/15, at 3. The Commonwealth replied, "there's no agreement on the part of the Commonwealth, and I think counsel would agree that the sentence as it stands is actually illegal. It's just an attempt that in the offering if that were to occur[,] we would remedy that situation." Id. at 4. Fantauzzi's counsel responded as follows:

I have interpreted [ Alleyne , supra ,] and not only [its] progeny but also the cases that came before it[ regarding] Pennsylvania mandatory minimum sentences. [W]e believe that there was an issue with regard to the sentencing. However, the strength of that legal issue by agreement of what we're doing here today is not being contested. [T]his is part of the agreement that I believe we had with the Commonwealth. The [trial c]ourt is not being asked to pass on whether or not our motion [to correct illegal sentence] is correct or not. It is simply an agreement by the Commonwealth and [Fantauzzi] to allow the [trial c]ourt to re-evaluate or to evaluate not only the sentence that was given but also any new information that [the trial c]ourt might have in terms of imposing sentence.

Id. at 7-8 (paragraph formatting omitted). Thereupon, the PCRA court vacated the September 14, 2006 judgment of sentence and granted Fantauzzi relief in the form of a re-sentencing hearing. Id. at 9.

At the conclusion of the re-sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 28 to 56 years’ incarceration.¹² Trial Court Order, 2/20/15 (noting that Fantauzzi's sentence was to run consecutively to all other sentences, and he was to be given credit for time served). On February 27, 2015, Fantauzzi filed a post-sentence motion requesting the trial court reconsider its judgment of sentence. The trial court subsequently denied Fantauzzi's post-sentence motion on March 2, 2015.

On appeal, this Court affirmed Fantauzzi's February 20, 2015 judgment of sentence.¹³ Fantauzzi , 2016 WL 1567073, at *1. Fantauzzi did not seek discretionary review by our Supreme Court.

On May 4, 2017, Fantauzzi filed pro se a PCRA petition asserting, inter alia , a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and a claim asserting the imposition of a sentence greater than the lawful maximum. Fantauzzi's Pro Se PCRA Petition, 5/4/17, at ¶12; see also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(ii) and (vii). That same day, Fantauzzi also filed pro se a memorandum in support of his PCRA petition. The PCRA court appointed counsel to represent Fantauzzi. See PCRA Court Order, 5/16/17. Thereafter, Fantauzzi filed a petition requesting that he be permitted to proceed pro se in seeking collateral relief, which the PCRA subsequently granted after conducting a Grazier hearing. See Fantauzzi's Petition to Proceed Pro Se , 6/12/17; see also N.T., 8/4/17, at 9.

On September 11, 2017, Fantauzzi filed pro se an amended PCRA petition asserting numerous claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. See Fantauzzi's Pro Se Amended PCRA Petition, 9/11/17, at 6. On November 8, 2017, the PCRA court denied Fantauzzi's petition.¹⁴ On appeal, Fantauzzi raised claims of ineffective assistance of re-sentencing counsel for (1) failure to object to the trial court's reliance on an incorrect prior record score when it re-sentenced Fantauzzi, and (2) for failure to object to Fantauzzi being re-sentenced for criminal attempt to commit homicide that involved serious bodily injury in violation of Fantauzzi's constitutional rights. Commonwealth v. Fantauzzi , 2019 WL 2226115, at *3 (Pa. Super. Filed ...